7 days or 7 billion years?

pts · 16-06-2009 5:29pm

uprising wrote: »

The dominant view among scientists is the recent African origin of modern humans.

the dominant view isnt fact, its their view.........

I'm still human, like my parents, whats next?

Are you confusing fact ("objective and verifiable observation") with proof? How about the fact that it is observable that bacteria can develop resistance towards antibiotics? A fact doesn't prove a theory, but it can disprove it. The fact that bacteria develops resistance strengthens the theory of evolution as that kind of behaviour would be expected if that theory is true.

Smart Bug · 16-06-2009 5:30pm

uprising wrote: »

where is the human missing link, humans (homosapians) have always been humans, will we keep evolving, are we evolving right now?

http://www.leftrade.com.au/gearstore/components/com_productbook/img_pictures/med_chain_link_sister_clip.jpg

lil'princess · 16-06-2009 5:31pm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-missing-link-found.html

This fossil is said to be the most direct ancestor we have discovered to date.

ScumLord · 16-06-2009 5:31pm

DTrotter wrote: »

Want to buy a pure bred labradoodle?

I've heard their 15% more absorbent than regular poodles, I'll take 4.

uprising · 16-06-2009 5:31pm

pts wrote: »

Are you confusing fact ("objective and verifiable observation") with proof? How about the fact that it is observable that bacteria can develop resistance towards antibiotics? A fact doesn't prove a theory, but it can disprove it. The fact that bacteria develops resistance strengthens the theory of evolution as that kind of behaviour would be expected if that theory is true.

Ok so someday todays flu will walk with us, is this what your saying?

toiletduck · 16-06-2009 5:32pm

uprising wrote: »

The dominant view among scientists is the recent African origin of modern humans.

the dominant view isnt fact, its their view.........

I'm still human, like my parents, whats next?

Evolution doesn't have a "goal". Asking the above just highlights that you really don't understand the concept.

uprising · 16-06-2009 5:34pm

lil'princess wrote: »

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-missing-link-found.html

This fossil is said to be the most direct ancestor we have discovered to date.

Is said, lots of things can be said, actually ANYTHING can be said.

DTrotter · 16-06-2009 5:36pm

lil'princess wrote: »

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-missing-link-found.html

This fossil is said to be the most direct ancestor we have discovered to date.

It's not the most direct ancestor to humans, it's a link to a distant common ancestor. Think of evolution as a tree (go to youtube and look for David Attenboroughs tree of life), our closest ancestor is a chimpanzee, we share a common ancestor and at some point in time it branched off and humans and chimpanzees became seperate species. Previously that ancestor would have shared a common ancestor with another primate (let's use a gorilla as an example), and that common ancestor would have shared a common ancestor with some monkey like creature and going backwards until the fossil in your link branched off. If you find it interesting I recommend The Ancestors Tale by Richard Dawkins.

DTrotter · 16-06-2009 5:37pm

ScumLord wrote: »

I've heard their 15% more absorbent than regular poodles, I'll take 4.

You're thinking of the labrashamwow.

DTrotter · 16-06-2009 5:38pm

uprising wrote: »

Ok so someday todays flu will walk with us, is this what your saying?

No, power walk.

Smart Bug · 16-06-2009 5:38pm

uprising wrote: »

What has been proven that over use of antibiotics has strenghtened viruses, has affected and altered our inbuilt immune system

A virus is a pathogenic organism of a sub-cellular size that infects host cells and modifies their genetic structure.

An antibiotic is a substance derived essentially from mold that is used to combat micro-organisms such as fungi, protozoa etc.

Antiobiotics not only do not, but cannot affect a virus. Viruses are combatted by anti-viral drugs (HIV treatments etc) or vaccines.

Viruses actively show evolution in practice (current flu virus strains etc ad infinitum)

Seriously, if you haven't realised the above facts you have no place in this debate.

uprising · 16-06-2009 5:39pm

toiletduck wrote: »

Evolution doesn't have a "goal". Asking the above just highlights that you really don't understand the concept.

Well please explain the concept, concept is an idea, early people had the idea if you sail out to sea you will fall off the side.

So i dont understand somebodys idea, but is it fact?

lil'princess · 16-06-2009 5:40pm

uprising wrote: »

Is said, lots of things can be said, actually ANYTHING can be said.

Must you play semantics?

I'm saying is said because I'm no scientist. But this is what a whole bunch of scientist came up have discovered, and considering they are experts in their field it would be wise to listen to them.

pts · 16-06-2009 5:41pm

uprising wrote: »

Ok so someday todays flu will walk with us, is this what your saying?

No, that isn't what I am saying, that fact that you are asking that makes me think that you either; don't understand the principles of evolution, don't want to understand evolution or that you're trolling.

uprising wrote: »

Is said, lots of things can be said, actually ANYTHING can be said.

Yes, and you can choose to believe it or not. If you think that you know better than thousands of people that have spent most of their life studying something then that is fair enough (I'm not talking about that article, but evolution and science in general). You are probably wrong though.

toiletduck · 16-06-2009 5:43pm

uprising wrote: »

So i dont understand somebodys idea, but is it fact?

It has been observed. It fits with fossil remains we find. A whole heap of medicine is currently underpinned by it.

Twin-go · 16-06-2009 5:43pm

Jakkass wrote: »

I do believe in Christianity, and I don't believe there is absolute proof for God. I do however believe that there are indications for it. I believe both go together.

What are the indications?
There are more indications for there not to be a God.

Jakkass wrote: »

Depends on what kind of faith you are discussing. If you are discussing blind faith perhaps it is just a hunch. However if you are dealing with what is or what is not more probable and give reasons for believing then that isn't blind faith is it?

All Faith by its nature is blind. It has no logical proof.

Jakkass wrote: »

Beliefs aren't based on fact. If they were they wouldn't be beliefs they would be well, facts and they wouldn't be so contentious.

Your getting into simantics here. Ok the fact is when you die there is no brain activity. You cease to exist. Where is your proof of the after life? Back to blind faith again.

Jakkass wrote: »

Ah right. So because you feel I amn't making the most of my life I amn't. What kind of reasoning is that?

I think Christians are more free than atheists or agnostics. My views aren't based on popularity, I have the freedom not to be bound to the will of man, I don't have to be bound to social norms. I reject those who are tempting me into things that turn out to be a detriment.

I'd far prefer to have a devotion to God than a devotion to the evils of this world.[/quote]

Sorry, you follow a guy that walked the earth 2000 years ago claiming to be the Son of God. If somebody was to do that now the would be sectioned under the mental health act.

Does the Church not have the Ten commandments? Rules you must follow? Written by a man, Moses, to ensure his people adhered to social norms. Restricting their free will to whorship who/what they wanted.

Just because somebody is not devoted to God does not mean they are devoted to the Evils of the world.

If it was proven to you that God did not exist would you suddenly become Evil? Is That what you are saying? You need him so you stay on the streight and narrow.

Jakkass wrote: »

So? I would rather my decisions be influenced by God than by humanity to be honest with you.

The majorty of people no matter what there believes are, are good people.
Do you not think humanity can look after itself?
I think its sad you have no faith in humanity.

Jakkass wrote: »

Which church are you referring to? I've seen many Christians who truly want to live out their faith in honesty and integrity. Most of them in the younger age demographic.

By the way what do you have for assessing what is Christ's church? Why is Christs church better than a church of man. Didn't you just say a minute ago that morals contrived by people should be more important than morals revealed to mankind by God?.

I have seen many so called Christians that have not lived out their faith in honesty and integrity, but that is true of all walks of live. It's when the Church does its best the protect these evil people that live within its ranks I have a problem. Many crimes are commited in the name of religion, many people kill and have been killed in the name of religion (Northern Ireland, Middle East etc.). It's true that if there was no religion these people would find some other reason to fight. It may be easier for example if in the North there was no religion. The different communities may have inter-married by now and the divide be less apparent.

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, China is an atheist country. The majority of people are atheists, therefore it should be considered with the rest of the countries you are considering. Let's be intellectually honest. By the way, communism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to be a communist and an atheist, this is the way most communist states operated in the 20th century.

We can all pick the best of the batch and ignore the worst.

China is a Communist country not an Atheist Country. Poland was a Communist country but yet 90% of its Population were Roman Catholic. Communism and Ateism are absolutly mutually exclusive. I'm am Atheist but I'm am not Communist. Its also possible to be Democrat and Atheist, Socialist and Atheist. let's as you say be "intellectually honest"

In many countries Religion causes oppression of minorities. Religions such as Islam and Christiam think Homosexuality is evil. In Islamic states women are treated like second class citizens.

Athiesm does not oppress any group.

Jakkass wrote: »

Fair enough. I feel I am getting closer to the truth through my religion, and through other learning I would do. I don't believe religion and science are mutually exclusive either.

Religion was created by Man when Man was incapable of understanding His world. As we become more capable of understanding the world around us we will come to realise the folly of following a so called God.

toiletduck · 16-06-2009 5:44pm

uprising wrote: »

Well please explain the concept, concept is an idea, early people had the idea if you sail out to sea you will fall off the side.

Check out the link to the BC&P thread in the first few posts of this thread. Read through it. It's a good start.

lil'princess · 16-06-2009 5:44pm

uprising wrote: »

Well please explain the concept, concept is an idea, early people had the idea if you sail out to sea you will fall off the side.

So i dont understand somebodys idea, but is it fact?

The concept is that evolution is sexual success multiplied by time.

uprising · 16-06-2009 5:45pm

Smart Bug wrote: »

A virus is a pathogenic organism of a sub-cellular size that infects host cells and modifies their genetic structure.

An antibiotic is a substance derived essentially from mold that is used to combat micro-organisms such as fungi, protozoa etc.

Antiobiotics not only do not, but cannot affect a virus. Viruses are combatted by anti-viral drugs (HIV treatments etc) or vaccines.

Viruses actively show evolution in practice (current flu virus strains etc ad infinitum)

Seriously, if you haven't realised the above facts you have no place in this debate.

I have no place in this debate?, what caused the so called superbug?

http://factoidz.com/our-immune-systems-how-taking-too-many-antibiotics-has-hurt-us/

ScumLord · 16-06-2009 5:48pm

uprising wrote: »

I have no place in this debate?, what caused the so called superbug?
]

Evolution! You must be trying very hard not to get this.

uprising · 16-06-2009 5:48pm

toiletduck wrote: »

It has been observed. It fits with fossil remains we find. A whole heap of medicine is currently underpinned by it.

BUT IS IT FACT?

pts · 16-06-2009 5:49pm

Smart Bug points out that:

Smart Bug wrote:

Antiobiotics not only do not, but cannot affect a virus.

you retort with:

uprising wrote: »

I have no place in this debate?, what caused the so called superbug?

http://factoidz.com/our-immune-systems-how-taking-too-many-antibiotics-has-hurt-us/

Do you read what you post? It actually says:

Antibiotics should only be used against a bacteria and not a virus. The common cold, flu (influenza), earache and bronchitis are caused by a virus and not bacterial. Antibiotics do nothing against a virus.

uprising · 16-06-2009 5:50pm

ScumLord wrote: »

Evolution! You must be trying very hard not to get this.

manmade evolution

4zn76tysfajdxp · 16-06-2009 5:53pm

Earthhorse wrote: »

If we're descended from apes then how come we don't build our houses in trees? Can someone please just answer that question for me?

WTF are you talking about, troll? I had a treehouse when I was a kid.

uprising · 16-06-2009 5:54pm

pts wrote: »

Smart Bug points out that:

you retort with:

Do you read what you post? It actually says:

So why do doctors give antibiotics for the flu virus, it does nothing but strenghten it

toiletduck · 16-06-2009 5:55pm

uprising wrote: »

BUT IS IT FACT?

In layman terms, yes.

Scientific terms are somewhat different and lead to the whole "It's just a theory!" comments by opponents. The differing uses of fact and theory are actually central to the underhanded creationist attacks on evolution.

keen · 16-06-2009 5:55pm

I picked Natural Selection etc.

But I still don't understand what made it possible for natural selection to take place.

DTrotter · 16-06-2009 5:55pm

wrote: »

If we're descended from apes then how come we don't build our houses in trees? Can someone please just answer that question for me?
.

Right enough, probably would have been better than some of the apartments that were thrown up.

DTrotter · 16-06-2009 5:57pm

keen wrote: »

I picked Natural Selection etc.

But I still don't understand what made it possible for natural selection to take place.

Anything that puts pressure on species survival and if a species has a characteristic that helps it survive then it survives and passes the characteristic/trait to the next generation and so on. Mutations in genes can give species a survival advantage.
Go to youtube and type Carl Sagan Samurai crab

Black Swan · 16-06-2009 5:58pm

The Flying Spaghetti Monster! (Pastafarian theory)

pts · 16-06-2009 5:58pm

uprising wrote: »

So why do doctors give antibiotics for the flu virus, it does nothing but strenghten it

Listen, I'm getting very impatient with you as you make silly claims, then when you're shown to be wrong move on making new silly claims. Let me put it this way just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that it's not true.

uprising · 16-06-2009 6:00pm

Alarm bells were going off way back in the 70's when antibiotics started being prescribed for just about everything under the sun including nonbacterial infections. The overuse acted to breed ever stronger germs by wiping out the weaker strains but leaving the more hardy ones to increase their resistance. It is truly a case of survival of the fittest.
In 1977, Doctor Michael Jacobs of South Africa, reported a strep pneumonia bacteria that resisted every known drug at the time. That was South Africa but today such strains are showing up in the U.S. and our existing pneumococcal vaccines likely won't stop them.
In 1981, Professor Stuart Levy of Tufts University, along with 200 other scientists and public health officials worldwide issued one of the first urgent public warnings about the misuse of antibiotics and the risk of germs becoming resistant to them.

lil'princess · 16-06-2009 6:02pm

keen wrote: »

I picked Natural Selection etc.

But I still don't understand what made it possible for natural selection to take place.

A bunch of random things happened and useful ones hung around.

Think of two giraffes living in an area with tall trees. One giraffe has a small neck and the other has a long neck. The long neck can reach the trees and eat so therefore survives to pass on it's genetic material. The short neck can't reach the leaves on the trees and therfore dies so doesn't pass on its genes. after awhile short necks die out. = natural selection in a some what dumbed down version but he it makes sense.

uprising · 16-06-2009 6:05pm

pts wrote: »

Listen, I'm getting very impatient with you as you make silly claims, then when you're shown to be wrong move on making new silly claims. Let me put it this way just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that it's not true.

Your the sheep, you dont understand viruses, no-one does, if we did we wouldnt be dying from them, and so what if your getting impatient, what should i do? believe you waffling about something thats not understood by anybody especially you.

philologos · 16-06-2009 6:06pm

Twin-go wrote: »

What are the indications?
There are more indications for there not to be a God.

Are there? I'm interested to see what your indications are. I have a brief list of indications in my signature. I want you genuinely to provide a list for the indications for why God does not exist though as it is very rare that an atheist in these parts actually lists them without trying to push questions on the Christian. I will read and give a response.

Twin-go wrote: »

All Faith by its nature is blind. It has no logical proof.

Interesting. Is atheism blind for the same reason? I disagree that blind faith depends on proof or not. If people manage to argue with reason for why God exists with reference to sources outside of the Bible I think one cannot but applaud someone for doing this.

I personally find agnostics more rational than atheists.

Twin-go wrote: »

Your getting into simantics here. Ok the fact is when you die there is no brain activity. You cease to exist. Where is your proof of the after life? Back to blind faith again.

We have no reason to exclude the possibility. As far as I'm concerned we could just as likely have existed prior to our birth as much as we couldn't have. It's up to people to make their case from this point.

Twin-go wrote: »

Sorry, you follow a guy that walked the earth 2000 years ago claiming to be the Son of God. If somebody was to do that now the would be sectioned under the mental health act.

If it was merely as much as Jesus claiming to be the Son of God I wouldn't believe. I found that Jesus has substantiated the Jewish scriptures and had fulfilled who the prophets had prophesied him to be on over 300 cases. So, yes, I would trust someone who passed such a robust test of who He claimed to be over the will of corrupt men.

These are just some of them.

Twin-go wrote: »

Does the Church not have the Ten commandments? Rules you must follow? Written by a man, Moses, to ensure his people adhered to social norms. Restricting their free will to whorship who/what they wanted.

Written by Moses, revealed by God. As for restricting their free will to worship. I think if I believed that Christianity or in Moses' case Judaism was the truth I would want as many people as possible to believe in the truth rather than mere fable.

Twin-go wrote: »

Just because somebody is not devoted to God does not mean they are devoted to the Evils of the world.

I would prefer a clear point of reference.

Twin-go wrote: »

If it was proven to you that God did not exist would you suddenly become Evil? Is That what you are saying? You need him so you stay on the streight and narrow.

Every man has sinned. Therefore every man is considered to have done evil before God. Ever wonder why the expression "born again" is used in Christianity? Well, it means that through baptism we accept Jesus' punishment as the punishment of our sins, and that we are raised to new life in Christ, leaving what sinful ways we have carried out in the present behind.

Twin-go wrote: »

The majorty of people no matter what there believes are, are good people.
Do you not think humanity can look after itself?
I think its sad you have no faith in humanity.

I disagree with this hypothesis. I don't agree with your definition of good. Everybody has sinned, therefore nobody is good on their own accord.

Twin-go wrote: »

I have seen many so called Christians that have not lived out their faith in honesty and integrity, but that is true of all walks of live. It's when the Church does its best the protect these evil people that live within its ranks I have a problem. Many crimes are commited in the name of religion, many people kill and have been killed in the name of religion (Northern Ireland, Middle East etc.). It's true that if there was no religion these people would find some other reason to fight. It may be easier for example if in the North there was no religion. The different communities may have inter-married by now and the divide be less apparent.

I agree with you on the crimes which have taken place in the name of religion. These are however a vast minority. I also could cite crimes which have taken place in the name of atheism throughout the world from the Enlightenment onwards.

Christianity overwhelmingly has a positive face on the world, and has overwhelmingly distanced itself from atrocities. That's what I am pleased at. In the modern world Christianity in general has been bearing fruit in the spirit of Jesus of Nazareth. Unfortunately good deeds aren't as documented as well as the bad ones, and unfortunately some people regard corruption by man as being the same thing as God directly causing atrocities.

Twin-go wrote: »

China is a Communist country not an Atheist Country. Poland was a Communist country but yet 90% of its Population were Roman Catholic. Communism and Ateism are absolutly mutually exclusive. I'm am Atheist but I'm am not Communist. Its also possible to be Democrat and Atheist, Socialist and Atheist. let's as you say be "intellectually honest"

Sorry this is just wrong. In the 20th century a vast majority of communist nations enforced State Atheism on their populaces. Communism and atheism have been twined together since the time of Karl Marx. They are not mutually exclusive. It's very possible to be both an atheist and a communist. That's as intellectually honest as you will get.

Many atheists are not communists, but many are also.

Twin-go wrote: »

In many countries Religion causes oppression of minorities. Religions such as Islam and Christians think Homosexuality is evil. In Islamic states women are treated like second class citizens.

I disagree with the ethics of homosexuality, yet I still respect people I know who are gay and I still engage in a positive relationship with them by all means possible. Just because someone has a disagreement doesn't mean that one has to descend into hatred. I don't know how I could be considered to be "oppressing" anyone either as an individual believer.

Twin-go wrote: »

Athiesm does not oppress any group.

Many ideologies in history have given rise to oppression in the past. These ideologies when abused can cause hatred, and corruption. Atheism is included, Christianity is included, Islam is included, racism is included, as well as numerous other ideologies.

The point is that Jesus Christ never encouraged this, so it's pretty ridiculous to blame atrocities such as these on Christianity when they are clearly not a part of Christian belief in general.

Twin-go wrote: »

Religion was created by Man when Man was incapable of understanding His world. As we become more capable of understanding the world around us we will come to realise the folly of following a so called God.

This is merely a belief of yours. I respect your right to hold it but I cannot help but be convinced otherwise.

My name is URL · 16-06-2009 6:07pm

uprising wrote: »

Well please explain the concept, concept is an idea, early people had the idea if you sail out to sea you will fall off the side.

So i dont understand somebodys idea, but is it fact?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJQ4EgFRNc&feature=channel_page

DTrotter · 16-06-2009 6:08pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Every man has sinned. Therefore every man is considered to have done evil before God. Ever wonder why the expression "born again" is used in Christianity? Well, it means that through baptism we accept Jesus' punishment as the punishment of our sins, and that we are raised to new life in Christ, leaving what sinful ways we have carried out in the present behind.
.

Why did jesus have to die again?

uprising · 16-06-2009 6:10pm

My name is URL wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJQ4EgFRNc&feature=channel_page

This video is not available in your country due to copyright restrictions.

My name is URL · 16-06-2009 6:13pm

uprising wrote: »

This video is not available in your country due to copyright restrictions.

Damn, I should have used Megavideo :pac:

Here's the same vid, in sh1t quality - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjpziQQnyNo&feature=related

philologos · 16-06-2009 6:13pm

DTrotter wrote: »

Why did jesus have to die again?

To fuflil Messianic prophesy. In Judaism to be considered the Messiah you had to be martyred. If Jesus did not die, Jesus would not have been the Messiah.

See Isaiah 53 for clarification.

There are also numerous other reasons I could list but this is probably one of the primary ones.

Of course you know however, that Jesus had victory over the grave through the Resurrection, and Christians according to Christianity have victory over sin (or have been set free from it) due to the new life they have in Christ.

Jesus is referred to as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29)
Jesus was crucified so that if we accept Him as our Saviour we may be passed over at the day of Judgement.

Likewise the lamb in Exodus 12 was on the door of the Israelites so that they would be passed over when God was punishing the Egyptians.

The Jews were freed from slavery to the Egyptians, the Christians were freed from the slavery to sin.

keen · 16-06-2009 6:23pm

Jakkass wrote: »

To fuflil Messianic prophesy. In Judaism to be considered the Messiah you had to be martyred. If Jesus did not die, Jesus would not have been the Messiah.

See Isaiah 53 for clarification.

There are also numerous other reasons I could list but this is probably one of the primary ones.

Of course you know however, that Jesus had victory over the grave through the Resurrection, and Christians according to Christianity have victory over sin (or have been set free from it) due to the new life they have in Christ.

Jesus is referred to as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29)
Jesus was crucified so that if we accept Him as our Saviour we may be passed over at the day of Judgement.

Likewise the lamb in Exodus 12 was on the door of the Israelites so that they would be passed over when God was punishing the Egyptians.

The Jews were freed from slavery to the Egyptians, the Christians were freed from the slavery to sin.

Who made God?

lil'princess · 16-06-2009 6:33pm

keen wrote: »

Who made God?

Theologically God simply is. God is not necessarily tied with creation. God is the source of his own being.

keen · 16-06-2009 6:38pm

lil'princess wrote: »

Theologically God simply is. God is not necessarily tied with creation. God is the source of his own being.

That's the bit I don't get. It seems a cop out for a question that can't be answered.

philologos · 16-06-2009 6:41pm

keen wrote: »

Who made God?

I don't think God is the source of His own being. However most traditional Christian positions have seen God as eternal, having always existed. Thomas Aquinas deals with this topic in a book I have, although I only dealt with his section on morality really, so I must get around to the chapter concerning God for his reasoning on it.

keen · 16-06-2009 6:44pm

Jakkass wrote: »

However most traditional Christian positions have seen God as eternal, having always existed.

I can't see how anyone could simple except that fact without question, if you think about for a bit it sounds completely absurd.

lil'princess · 16-06-2009 6:47pm

keen wrote: »

That's the bit I don't get. It seems a cop out for a question that can't be answered.

Thats what faith is, we don't know, there could be, so we believe.

dlofnep · 16-06-2009 6:51pm

I believe that we are the genetic experiment of space aliens from planet Zog. Although suprisingly, that was not an option in the poll.

philologos · 16-06-2009 6:53pm

keen wrote: »

I can't see how anyone could simple except that fact without question, if you think about for a bit it sounds completely absurd.

As absurd as saying the universe created itself?

It isn't anything that I accept without question, I'm open to alternative explanations if the are any. I personally don't know if God was created or not and I'm willing to have people prompt me to think about it more often.

Mrmoe · 16-06-2009 6:53pm

There is only one theory in this poll and that is the theory of evolution. The rest can not be called theories.

Dictionary: the·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē)

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary

n., pl. -ries.

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

keen · 16-06-2009 7:01pm

Jakkass wrote: »

As absurd as saying the universe created itself?

It isn't anything that I accept without question, I'm open to alternative explanations if the are any. I personally don't know if God was created or not and I'm willing to have people prompt me to think about it more often.

Yes I would say as absurd as saying the universe created itself.

I think nobody knows, it's a mystery too us all. God/Relegion is a easy way to explain a good chunk of it without addressing the difficult questions, when there asked faith is brought into the equation.

Evoultion gives us a fair view answers to how life formed/adapted on Earth but that's about, it still lacks answers in the same way religion does.

7 days or 7 billion years?

Comments